It is most refreshing, most heartening and most reassuring to note that the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati has in W.P.(PIL) No.231 of 2020, W.P.No.5105 of 2019 and W.P.No.806 of 2021 that was pronounced as recently as on October 13, 2022 has minced absolutely no words to hold unequivocally that the State’s decision to appoint an ‘Executive Officer’ to control and manage the affairs of Ahobilam Temple in Kurnool is violative of Article 26(d) of the Constitution and affects the Mathadipathis right of administration. The Court rejected the State’s argument that the Temple and the Math are distinct entities. The Court made it clear that merely because the Temple is located in the current State of Andhra Pradesh and the Math is located in the current State of Tamil Nadu, the former does not cease to be a place of religious worship pertaining to the main Math. The Court pointed out that, “In fact, at one point of time, both the Math and the Temple were in the composite State of Madras. This fact cannot be lost sight of.”
At the very outset, this most learned, laudable, landmark and latest judgment authored by Hon’ble Mr Chief Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra for a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court comprising of himself and Hon’ble Mr Justice DVSS Somayajulu sets the ball rolling by first and foremost putting forth in para 1 that, “The arguments in these cases were commenced by the learned senior counsel Sri C.R.Sridharan in W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020. Sri W.B.Srinivas, learned senior counsel argued on behalf of the petitioners in other two Writ Petitions. Learned Advocate General argued on behalf of the respondent-State.”
Simply put, the Division Bench then discloses in para 2 that, “W.P. (PIL) No.231 of 2020 is preferred by a person claiming to be a devotee and a person interested in the Ahobilam Math and Temple. The petitioner prays for any writ, order or direction, more particularly, one in the nature of a writ of quo warranto questioning the authority of the 2nd respondent in appointing the 3rd respondent as Executive Officer of Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam and the authority by which the 2nd respondent has directed the 3rd respondent to change the age-old traditional administration in the name of Srivan Satagopa Sri to the one under the name and seal of the 3rd respondent and to quash the appointment order as well as order to operate bank accounts in the name and seal of the 3rd respondent thereby restoring the tradition of administration and operation of bank accounts by the Jeeyar of Sri Ahobila Mutt.”
Further, the Division Bench then mentions in para 3 that, “The prayer in W.P.No.5105 of 2019 is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in imposing the 3rd respondent – Executive Officer in the administration of Ahobilam Devasthanam, which is under the management of Ahobilam Math, as unconstitutional, being ultra vires of the Act 30 of 1987, without jurisdiction, arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental rights of the devotees of the Ahobilam Temple.”
Furthermore, the Division Bench then discloses in para 4 that, “The prayer in W.P.No.806 of 2021 is for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent in appointing the 3rd respondent as Executive Officer vide proceedings Rc.No.E2/15021/202/2020 dated 30.12.2020 and imposing the administration of the 3rd respondent on Ahobilam Devasthanam which is under the management of Ahobilam Math.”
Be it noted, the Division Bench envisages in para 47 that, “The examination of the applicable Acts starting from 1927 Act shows that the Ahobilam Temple fell within the definition of an excepted Temple under section 7(5) of the Act since it was established before 1801 and since 1863 it continued to be under the management of a Jeeyar whose nomination did not vest in nor was exercised by the Government. Section 37 of the Act also clearly stated that a committee constituted under the provisions of the Act cannot exercise jurisdiction over ‘Maths’ or excepted Temples. Therefore, admittedly, under the 1927 Act, no control was exercised. A reading of section 62 of Chapter VI of the 1927 Act shows that if the affairs of a Math or an excepted Temple have been mismanaged, the Board was given certain power of interference and to frame a scheme of administration. Admittedly, the Ahobilam Temple is not an ‘excepted Temple’. 48. After the State of Andhra Pradesh was formed, the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1951 was passed. Section 2(10) of the Act defines a ‘Math’. Section 2(15) defines a religious institution as including a Math. Under this Act, as per Sec 56 if the Commissioner has any reason to believe that the property or funds of a Math are mismanaged etc., and he is satisfied that it is necessary in the interest of administration to take action, then he can request the trustee to appoint a competent person as Manager. In default, the Commissioner may himself appoint a Manager. Under section 58, the Deputy Commissioner can frame a scheme for the institution after consulting the trustees, persons having interest and also the area committee. If after the satisfaction, he feels it necessary and desirable, he shall frame a scheme. This scheme can provide for appointment of a paid Executive Officer (Section 58(2) (d)). Section 63 also enables the Commissioner to notify an institution, if he believes that such a religious institution is being mismanaged and it is necessary to take certain steps. After the institution is notified, the Commissioner can appoint a salaried Executive Officer (section 66).”
While continuing in the same vein, the Division Bench then notes in para 49 that, “Similarly, under the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1966 also, section 2(17) defines a ‘Math’ and 2(22) defines a ‘religious institution’, which includes a Math. Section 27 deals with the power of the Government to appoint Executive Officer for religious institutions. However, Chapter V deals with Maths and specified endowments.. Section 43 of Chapter V makes it very clear that the provisions of various sections including section 27 shall not apply to a ‘Math’. Equally important is section 102 of this Act. As per section 102(b) nothing in the Act shall authorize any interference with the religious or spiritual functions of the head of the ‘Math’.”
It is worth noting that the Division Bench then points out in para 51 that, “In the case on hand, it is stated that the Ahobilam temple is a 6 (c) institution. However, as per section 29 of the Act, it is clearly stated that it is not necessary to appoint an Executive Officer for an institution included in the 6 (c) list. Chapter V of the Act deals with Maths in specific endowments. It is made very clear that section 48 of the Act states that certain sections under Chapter III will not apply to ‘Maths’.”
It cannot be glossed over that the Division Bench then clearly states in para 52 that, “As far as removal of Mathadipathis is concerned, it is the Dharmika Parishad that is now given the power to remove the Mathadipathi on certain specific grounds which are mentioned in section 51. The said order can only be passed after a notice is given and after the evidence is considered. However, in case of a ‘Math’, whose annual income exceeds one lakh, the order of removal of a Mathadipathi cannot take effect unless it is confirmed by the Government. This is clarified in the proviso to section 51(2). This Dharmika Parishad should consist of members who are specified in section152. These include very high Officers of the Government, Mathadipathies, retired Judge of a High Court, a legal luminary, two prominent philanthropists, one chartered accountant etc. All these provisions are being set out in detail in order to highlight the fact that the affairs of the Math should be sparingly interfered and only on certain grounds which are also considered in the leading judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.”
As we see, the Division Bench then observes in para 53 that, “One of us while sitting singly also had an opportunity to consider a similar issue and the judgment is reported in Raghavendra Swamy Math v. State of Andhra Pradesh, reported in 2021 (6) ALD 576.”
To put things in perspective, the Division Bench then envisages in para 54 that, “It is also noticed in the said case on the basis of the earlier law on the subject that the State cannot claim any power or authority to take over the management of the Math by spreading religious scheme, functions of the ‘Math’. It was held that only in cases of mismanagement, misconduct etc., the Court has the power to initiate action under section 51 of the Act. Both the judgment of H.H.Arjun Doss Mahant v. The Commissioner of Endowments, Endowments Department, reported in 2006 (3) ALD 22 and the judgment authored by one of us continue to be good law. No judgment of the Division Bench or of a Supreme Court was brought to our notice overruling these orders.”
Most significantly, the key points of para 55 in short are as follows: “The legal position mentioned above is also supported by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following cases and the relevant portions of which are reproduced hereunder:
Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt (supra).
“23. As we have already indicated, freedom of religion in our Constitution is not confined to religious beliefs only; it extends to religious practices as well subject to the restrictions which the Constitution itself has laid down. Under Article 26(b), therefore, a religious denomination or organization enjoys complete autonomy in the matter of deciding as to what rites and ceremonies are essential according to the tenets of the religion they hold and no outside authority has any jurisdiction to interfere with their decision in such matters. It should be noticed, however, that under Article 26(d), it is the fundamental right of a religious denomination or its representative to administer its properties in accordance with law; and the law, therefore, must leave the right of administration to the religious denomination itself subject to such restrictions and regulations as it might choose to impose. A law which takes away the right of administration from the hands of a religious denomination altogether and vests it in any other authority would amount to a violation of the right guaranteed under clause (d) of Article 26.”
Equally significant is what is then expounded in para 58 that, “Thus, it is clear legally the taking over of complete charge is a violation of the constitutional guarantee under Article 26. Factually also if the records filed by the State are examined, it appears that the earliest appointment of a person styled as the Executive Officer was made in 1961. However, a closer examination of the record reveals a contrary position.”
It would be instructive to note that the Division Bench then points out in para 61 that, “The case law on the subject has also been quoted earlier. The Mathadipathi cannot be reduced to the status of a mere employee or his powers cannot be denuded or taken away by the appointment of an Executive Officer, who will exercise all functions or control.”
Most forthrightly, the Division Bench then mandates in para 62 holding that, “In the case on hand, the Court finds that the posting of a Government servant in the Ahobilam Temple is not supported by any statutory provision or a rule. While it is a fact that there is some delay in the challenge of this appointment, the fact remains that this post of an Executive Officer is per se contrary to the provisions of the 1966 Act or the later Act. Therefore, on the ground of mere delay, this Court cannot approve the said decision since in the opinion of this Court it is void ab initio and in violation of constitutional right guaranteed under Article 26 of the Constitution of India.”
Conclusion
Most commendably, the Division Bench then as a corollary goes on to hold succinctly in para 63 that, “The above discussion leads us to an irresistible conclusion that the Ahobilam Temple is an integral and inseparable part of Ahobilam Math, which was established as a part of propagation of Hindu religion and for rendering spiritual service for propagating Sri Vaishnavism. The successive Jeeyars are the trustees of the Ahobilam Devasthanam and since the Government cannot appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam Math, it has no power to appoint an Executive Officer for the Ahobilam Temple by treating it separate from the Math. Appointing an Executive Officer for Temple, which is a part of the Math, is violative of Article 26(d) of the Constitution of India, as the same affects Jeeyars’/Mathadipathis’ right of administration.”
Finally, the Division Bench then concludes by holding in para 64 that, “We, accordingly, allow all the writ petitions and declare that the State of Andhra Pradesh has no authority, jurisdiction or entitlement under law to appoint an Executive Officer of Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam (Ahobilam Math Temple). Consequently, it is declared that appointment of 3rd respondent as Executive Officer vide proceedings Rc.No.E2/15021/202/2020 dated 30.12.2020, is illegal and the same is, accordingly, set aside. As a corollary, the 3rd respondent is restrained from interfering with the affairs of Sri Ahobila Mutt Parampara Aadheena Sri Lakshmi Narasimha Swamy Devasthanam (Ahobilam Math Temple) including operation of its bank accounts and the traditional administration and operation of the bank accounts by the Jeeyar of Ahobilam Math Temple, is restored. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.”
All told, we thus see quite clearly that the Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken the right, rational and remarkable decision to stop the Andhra Pradesh Government from taking over the affairs of Ahobilam Mutt temple in Kurnool as it violates Article 26(d) of the Constitution. We have discussed it in detail hereinabove. No denying it!